Sunday, November 03, 2013

The hot story of the week is the shooting at Los Angeles International Airport. The authorities have accused Paul Anthony Ciancia of being the shooter. There are some holes in the story. We'll see how this one turns out.

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Fair DUI: Stay safe and sane in a world gone MADD includes practical strategies to avoid drinking and driving, advice on how to handle police encounters, and policy suggestions to protect the innocent and make our roads safer.

Saturday, May 11, 2013

The working title is "Fair DUI – How To Protect Yourself From The MADDness".

In the book, Warren challenges some of the ideas pushed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The main focus is advising people how to avoid driving drunk, and how to handle yourself in traffic stops, arrests, and what do to after you're released.

Saturday, May 04, 2013

A friend was experiencing a really annoying problem with her iPhone. She would hit shuffle within a playlist or album. Instead of shuffling the songs on that list, it would repeat the first song over and over.

Took me a while to figure it out, but I found the problem and how to fix it.

While there are several web discussions about iPhone shuffle problems, I had trouble finding the answer but eventually did figure it out. This post should make it more obvious.

First, you need to tap the screen while you're playing a song. You should see something like this:

Notice the two orange symbols on the left and right just below the line showing how many minutes have played in the song. The one on the right indicates that it's shuffling songs. The one on the left is the important one for this post. If it's lit up like in this picture, it indicates that the same song will repeat.

Here's a closer look:

If you click on that icon on the left, it will change the repeat setting. Clicking it once should add the number 1, which indicates the song will repeat once. You're almost there:

Click it another time and it will go to gray, which means it's not repeating at all:

Now you should be done and it should work properly. Hope this works for you!

Friday, April 26, 2013

[L]icensed parents can legally carry a concealed weapon in the car
during [school] pickup and drop-off [but cannot] carry a
concealed weapon into a school building and not even ...
outside the vehicle in the school parking lot.

This is good news for pretty much everyone. TVB is known for being difficult. The new traffic court seems to be structured like the Nassau County Traffic Court, which is easier to work with while still upholding the law.

Friday, March 08, 2013

Bin Laden's brother-in-law has been indicted and is being held on the charge of conspiring to kill Americans. Having reviewed the indictment, it should be dismissed. Why?
The caption of the indictment first:

"Conspiracy to Kill US Nationals" - Got that?
Next, the important part of the indictment is where it describes his "Overt Acts":
Let's get this straight:
1. In May 2001, he "urged" people to swear allegiance to Bin Laden.
2. He told Bin Laden he would "assist" him.
3. AFTER 9/11 Bin Laden summoned him for assistance.
4. AFTER 9/11, he gave two speeches and said mean and nasty things about the US.

#1 is vague. Were the urged people involved in the 9/11 attacks? Did he know that Bin Laden was planning to kill Americans? It ain't in there.

#2 cannot be a crime. He said he would assist. Did he actually assist Bin Laden? Did this assistance involve killing Americans? Or is this about the speeches he gave AFTER the Americans (and others) were killed?

To be clear, I think Abu Ghaith is evil. He preaches hatred against Jews, and I'm in the tribe.
But this indictment doesn't make out anything remotely close to a crime. Judge Kaplan should dismiss it and order the Feds to return Abu Ghaith to the authorities in Jordan, Turkey or Kuwait - Abu Ghaith's choice.
For another take on the indictment, see LawFare.

The article gave at least some the impression that there would no longer be deals on speeding tickets in local traffic courts. A local attorney is quoted saying:

He doubts eliminating most plea bargaining on traffic cases would get past the Legislature. ... [M]aking plea bargains difficult would tie up local courts with traffic cases.

Some quick research called off any sense of panic. The plan would not really make plea bargains "difficult" nor eliminate it. And there is no fast track - that looks like something a headline editor came up with to make it catchy (speeding ticket - fast track - get it?).

After digging through recently submitted bills in the legislature, I found S02605, a bill in the Senate. Section C of the bill does a few things:

1. It would repeal §1101 of the Vehicle & Traffic Law, a sensible move. VTL 1101 is a catch-all law that says you're supposed to obey the traffic laws. Yes, it is that dumb. Some courts have used 1101 as a plea bargaining option, treated as a no-point violation that does not show up on a driving record. A couple years ago a DMV counsel opinion (pdf) said: "it is not appropriate for law enforcement personnel to charge a violation of §1101 or for a court to convict someone of such a charge."

So repealing 1101 is to some extent just housecleaning while also eliminating a plea bargaining option.

2. Here's the beef. For speeding tickets of more than 20 mph over the limit, any plea bargain would have to include points, with an exception. Under current law we defense lawyers are often able to get our clients plea bargains where their ticket is reduced to a parking ticket, typically under §1201. These do not show up on driving records.

This is not that big of a deal. Some prosecutors and judges won't reduce a speed of 21 mph or more to a parking ticket anyway. Keep in mind that a speed of 21-30 mph over the limit is 6 points (8 points for 31-40 over and 11 points for 41+), so a reduction to a 2-point moving violation is not bad for most drivers.

The law also leaves an exception, allowing the District Attorney to consent to "another charge" - i.e. something without points. If this happens the Court is supposed to put the reason for the exception on the record.

Of course, for tickets with speeds of 20 mph or less over the limit, we can still get reductions without any special exception. But even then there's no guarantee because each prosecutor and each judge have their own ways of doing things.

Now here's an interesting loophole: Since the Cuomo plea restriction affects guilty pleas, it does not limit so-called traffic diversion programs. In at least one county (Broome County Diversion Program), the District Attorney has a program where the defendant pays a $150 fee to the DA, submits proof of completion of a traffic safety class (i.e. driving school at additional cost) and then their ticket is dismissed. Because it's a dismissal, the limitation on guilty pleas does not apply.

Keep in mind that Cuomo's underlying purpose is to get additional money from traffic tickets. If your ticket is reduced from a speed to a parking ticket, the fine money goes to the town and there's no surcharge. Under the new rule, if passed, you will pay a higher fine and a surcharge, and most of that money will go to the state. Cuomo claims this will bring in $58 million in new money to the state, but it's a trick. Following a long line of NY politicians like Pataki, Bruno and Silver, and of course his own father, he's stealing money from the towns and raising the speeding ticket tax on drivers.

The DAs started their traffic diversion programs as a way of getting their greedy hands on some of that money - they get $150 a pop, stiffing both the towns and the state. The odds are that Cuomo and the legislature will figure that out and ban the traffic diversion programs soon enough. But for now, we suspect more DAs will jump on the diversion bandwagon.

It's still wise for anyone with a traffic ticket to hire a lawyer. Because of our experience, we are in a better position to assess how your ticket will affect you and what the best option is for your case. And while you can hire a cheap lawyer, you might get what you pay for.
Update: New article in the Buffalo News.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

NY Governor Andrew Cuomo's new gun control, the so-called SAFE Act (Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act), is unconstitutional. I'll explain in some detail below, but in short the new law flies directly in the face of the purpose of the Second Amendment.

The law explicitly goes after "military-style" firearms while purporting to protect hunting and sporting purposes. The Second Amendment is not about hunting and sporting uses of arms. Despite all the disputes about the phrasing, there can't be any question that it refers to "militia" and "the security of a free state." Neither of these has anything to do with hunting or sports.

While the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, the Supreme Court has said that that right is "not unlimited." ... The Court also recognized there is a "historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual' weapons."...
Some weapons are so dangerous and some ammunition devices so lethal that we simply cannot afford to continue selling them in our state. Assault weapons that have military-style features unnecessary for hunting and sporting purposes are this kind of weapon.

The key language here shows that the legislative intent is to discriminate against "military-style" features, and favoring (in a relative sense) hunting and sporting purposes.

In the earlier part of the quote they refer to Supreme Court decisions, mainly quoting Heller. But there is a problem from United States v. Miller, a 1939 case involving a short-barreled shotgun. Here's what the Miller Court said back then:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

The Miller Court ruled that Mr. Miller (and his friend Mr. Layton) were not protected by the Second because a short-barreled shotgun was not military equipment and had no relationship to militia use. This is precisely the opposite of what Cuomo is going for with his gun ban.

Unfortunately for those of us who support the Constitution, Justice Scalia threw us a curve ball in the Heller decision.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” ... It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

To which the only sensible response is: Huh?

Scalia was unusually and dangerously loose with his language here. It certainly sounds like he's saying the M-16 can be banned, and acknowledges that this detaches the right from its purpose. Not only does he mention the automatic M-16, but also "the like." By "the like" does he mean the semi-automatic AR-15, which is visually but not functionally similar? Or does he mean similar military rifles that are also automatic and used in actual military service. What does he mean by dangerous? Aren't all firearms dangerous? The AR-15 is perceived by many gun owners as less lethal because its .223 cartridge has less energy and a smaller bullet than more powerful hunting rifles like the .308 and the 30-06. What does he mean by unusual? The AR-15 is hardly unusual among gun owners - it's one of the most popular rifles.

Since the underlying case in Heller was about handguns, this portion is what lawyers call dicta. It's not a holding but a more casual comment that does not have much value as precedent. But it's troubling all the same.

It's as if Scalia is arguing with himself (and losing). Earlier in the decision, Scalia defended the Second as an individual right, referring to the prefatory clause:

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause .... But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. ...

Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents.

This, it should be noted, is in the holding and is thus more important as precedent than Scalia's confused comments in dicta. Now Scalia sounds like Alex Jones, talking about tyrants suppressing political opposition.

When the Cuomo gun ban heads to SCOTUS (as the Supreme Court of the United States is sometimes known), the Court will have to first come to grips with the purpose of the Second Amendment. While the only sensible reading is that in includes military arms, we can't count on the Court being sensible. With anemic conservatives like Kennedy and Roberts on the bench, we could end up with a ruling that leaves no purpose at all.

This would bring us to the next step - scrutiny of the challenged law. It seems likely that SCOTUS will retain the notion that there is still an individual right to keep and bear arms. Being a fundamental right, the Court will likely apply strict scrutiny: Asking whether the law narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest.

On the latter point, the Court will find that preventing gun violence is compelling. Pretty much anything is a compelling state interest anyway. But the narrow tailoring may be a problem for Governor Cuomo.

The stated purpose of the legislation is:

This legislation will protect New Yorkers by reducing the availability of assault weapons and deterring the criminal use of firearms while promoting a fair, consistent and efficient method of ensuring that sportsmen and other legal gun owners have full enjoyment of the guns to which they are entitled. A thoughtful network of laws provides the toughest, most comprehensive and balanced answer in the nation to gun violence.

So the Court should address whether the new law protects New Yorkers, deters the criminal use of firearms, and reduces gun violence.

If the law is challenged on this ground, it should have substantial problems. First, the prohibited weapons are rarely used in crimes. Back in 1997 the Bureau of Justice Statistics (pdf) found that "military-style" guns were used in less than 2% of crimes. This definition was broader, including machine guns (which are already illegal). If the banned weapons are rarely used in crimes, the law is not narrowly tailored to the purpose of deterring the criminal use of firearms.

Another phrase often used in strict scrutiny analysis is whether the law uses the least restrictive means necessary to achieve the goal. Here the Cuomo ban is highly and broadly restrictive. It bans "semi-automatic guns with detachable magazines that possess one feature commonly associated with military weapons." From reading the language, it appears the features are listed in subsection 22 of Penal Law §265.00. This would ban nearly all semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols. Caliber is irrelevant, extending even to .22LR guns which pack less punch than a home run ball.

Assuming the Court properly applies strict scrutiny (and that is a big assumption), Governor Cuomo and the State of New York will have the burden - they will have to prove - that this law is narrowly tailored and uses the least restrictive means. The law is so broad in what it bans that it's hard to imagine SCOTUS finding it meets the test.

Then the question will be how the Court resolves the case. Second Amendment supporters should hope they discard Scalia's odd dictum and acknowledge the military purpose of the Amendment. If so, the Court should reject the whole statute, as its stated purpose (banning military-style weapons) is unconstitutional. If not, the Court will have to pick and choose which weapons are properly banned, which cannot be banned, and they will likely leave an unclear middle ground of guns that should get some other treatment. This would spark decades of litigation over that middle ground, enriching lawyers like me beyond the dreams of avarice.

Update: For an FAQ from Cuomo - Governor's NY SAFE Act FAQ
Second update: Apparently the law was written so hastily they forgot to exempt police from it: Reason.

As for Governor Cuomo, during his 2010 campaign some referred to him as the Status Cuomo, a play on status quo. He has now proven that this moniker really should be the Statist Cuomo. But that's not a surprise.

Full Disclosure: I ran against Governor Cuomo in that 2010 election as the Libertarian candidate. As for my constitutional analysis, I have little experience with appeals, mostly losing, and even less experience in federal court. So take anything I say here with a couple grains of salt. And maybe a drink.